10-17-2014, 05:49 PM
pahoated, you're over-reacting.
I was only explaining why I use links.
I didn't say anyone WOULD get sued, and wasn't trying to scare anyone. Could, yes.
This topic isn't about copyright, but is more about credibility, so I'm not going to go on a whole side tangent explaining why, but everything you said about copyright in your post is incorrect. Copyright is automatic, no notice required since 1089. Public domain is not a simple idea. The netiquette you mentioned is not a safe way. A noncommercial website does not have nonprofit status, and it's certainly not an educational institution or a library, the two arenas that get a lot of latitude. For more understanding:
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/us-gov...works.html
http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/publi...airuse.pdf
I was in academia for some of my professional life and had friends/colleagues who published educational works who got sued for using quotes from "great books" in order to discuss and critique. They should not have been but yet it happened. My one friend was a professor at Stanford, without question a reputable educator, and still ... sued. You would be surprised I guess how complicated it really is.
But anyway, I only mentioned copyright as one of three reasons why I include a link, and only to be complete, so let's get back to what dakine was talking about.
I take dakine's point that whenever someone is trained in a profession where writing and/or sharing research is key, the correct format is absolutely drummed in and that's just the way you go about writing and sharing information after that.
I guess if you are self-taught it is different, and you might get into what professionals in the field would consider seriously bad habits.
It's interesting how professional writers are called nitpickers for following their training, but you don't call a carpenter a retentive nitpicker for correcting details that are crooked or shoddy. Maybe we could show some respect for other professions and allow for "codes" that we might not fully understand.
Kathy
I was only explaining why I use links.
I didn't say anyone WOULD get sued, and wasn't trying to scare anyone. Could, yes.
This topic isn't about copyright, but is more about credibility, so I'm not going to go on a whole side tangent explaining why, but everything you said about copyright in your post is incorrect. Copyright is automatic, no notice required since 1089. Public domain is not a simple idea. The netiquette you mentioned is not a safe way. A noncommercial website does not have nonprofit status, and it's certainly not an educational institution or a library, the two arenas that get a lot of latitude. For more understanding:
http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/us-gov...works.html
http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/publi...airuse.pdf
I was in academia for some of my professional life and had friends/colleagues who published educational works who got sued for using quotes from "great books" in order to discuss and critique. They should not have been but yet it happened. My one friend was a professor at Stanford, without question a reputable educator, and still ... sued. You would be surprised I guess how complicated it really is.
But anyway, I only mentioned copyright as one of three reasons why I include a link, and only to be complete, so let's get back to what dakine was talking about.
I take dakine's point that whenever someone is trained in a profession where writing and/or sharing research is key, the correct format is absolutely drummed in and that's just the way you go about writing and sharing information after that.
I guess if you are self-taught it is different, and you might get into what professionals in the field would consider seriously bad habits.
It's interesting how professional writers are called nitpickers for following their training, but you don't call a carpenter a retentive nitpicker for correcting details that are crooked or shoddy. Maybe we could show some respect for other professions and allow for "codes" that we might not fully understand.
Kathy